User talk:Scoutersig/Archive 2007a

Archive of User talk:Scoutersig comments from the first part of 2007.

Kappa Alphas

I changed the W&M and UMD pages to reflect that the organizations at those schools are Kappa Alpha Order organizations, not Kappa Alpha Society organizations. I'm not sure if you meant to set them both to be Kappa Alpha Society schools, but neither the schools' webpages nor the society's webpage (http://www.ka.org/KA-chapters.html) reflect that. Just wanted to note that in case there was confusion -- since I was made two identical changes to your edits, I figured I'd mention it in case I've missed something.

Cka3n 02:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rushing African-American Fraternities

Hey Scout, I saw your request for cleanup on this section. As written it is not in any way universal, and in some cases is outright wrong. The text was cut and pasted from a section of an existing blog titled "Joining a black fraternity or sorority." Text and cites for this section were also placed by a banned sockpuppet[1] who seems to places nonsense in various articles in hopes of bolstering attacks on various African-American fraternities and sororities. Hope that helps; I tagged the section, but it probably needs to come out altogether. -Robotam 17:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Conversion of {{WikiProject California}} to {{WikiProject Southern California}}

It's funny, since I was the one the group "gently chided", I thought I was the only one re-tagging. I appreciate your support, and of course I support you as well. And I do agree about Riverside County, I probably should have left both. I said I wouldn't add/move/change any tags until the discussion is over, so when it is, I'll at least re-add the {{WikiProject California}} tag back to the county. Thanks again, Brien Clark 17:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a whole lot of talk and no action, no consensus, and a lot of disappointed people in the process. I feel bad for BlankVerse. I wouldn't worry too much about KP though, I've never interacted with a more capricious fellow.

Yes, I guess we can go back to dual tagging to keep good faith. Because I really think the single tags is what is best for wikipedia, I'm half-tempted to prod on with converting tags per WP:IGNORE, but I won't. The whole debate has made me disinterested in banner tagging in general. I'll probably move on to doing something else for WP:SOCAL. Brien Clark^Talk 19:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea

Hey Scout - I think your most recent post on the Calif tagging question is very practical and workable. Do you think you might be re-involve some of the other folks who had contributed to get their views on your most recent suggestion? Spamreporter1 19:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Independent proposal for WP:CAL and WP:SOCAL tags

"He was not previously involved with either project before seeing this discussion, and I belive that his opinion therefore is NPOV."

User:Spamreporter1 is a sockpuppet of User:Ronbo76. They are also the editor who is responsible for the original hubbub over this issue, and the one who placed requests for comment on several project's talk pages (which is okay, but it would have been better to file an WP:RFC in my opinion, and I thought that the placing of one of the RFC's on the WP:OWN talk page [see here] was uncalled for). They also canvassed several editors on the issue. IMHO, they are not a neutral party in the discussion.

As a single-purpose account intended for separating spam fighting from regular editing, that is a legitimate reason for having a sockpuppet account, but I think the account should be identified as a sockpuppet, and it shouldn't be used for anything other than spam fighting. Blank Verse 07:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even without a smoking gun, a quick look at Spamreporter1's contributions would show that they were not a Wikipedia newbie when they first started editing as Spamreporter1. Other editors had also noticed this, and User:Will Beback specifically asks User:Spamreporter1 "Are you also active under a differnt username?" [2]

For the smoking gun, see this reply [3] that User:Spamreporter1 left on User:Will Beback's user page:

"Because of my concern regarding possible personal attacks cluttering my regular user name, I created this user name for these types of issues only, a legitimate use of an additional user name."

As for identifying Spamreporter1 as User:Ronbo76, that is a little less certain. Still, based upon their writing styles and how they interact with other users, I am confident that they are the same person. Blank Verse 06:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plot thickens. Brien Clark 01:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware-wedge.svg

Actually, Pennsylvania was a different color (a light pink), but I went ahead and darkened it anyway. — Eoghanacht ^talk 17:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject California

"I notice you're not officially listed as a member of either project. And since you started them, I was just wondering why."

See User:BlankVerse/rants#On joining WikiProjects and Regional notice boards. Blank Verse 08:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Shattered union map.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Shattered union map.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 18:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote

Thanks. Ronbo76 21:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SoCal/Cal Project

The problem with this is that the initial decision was incorrect and exlusionary, so it must be changed. KP Botany 18:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I noticed your wikibreak, and thought you could use some cheering up. Thank you for all your hard work, it is apreciated. Don't let the trolls at WP:CAL get you down, they're just trying to keep their article count up at the expense of making wikipedia better. Hang in there Scout. Brien Clark 04:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[4]

I am This Commons user. —Scouter Sig 15:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

userbox

I now have obscounded with one of your user boxes. Now we have exchanged boxes vis a vis .Samwisep86 07:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hard versus Soft science fiction

Asimov is also mentioned in article for Hard science fiction as one of defining authors of this subgenre. —Q Original 21:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samurai Jack

Didn't know anybody would be paying attention, but thanks for the complement. If I can I'll try and do a little bit of copy editing with the article later. Hewinsj 16:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories versus lists

The choice between categories and lists can be difficult, although I recommend lists for most situations.

Categories are probably best when subjects can be grouped together based on simple, clear criteria; when the characteristics described by the categories are major characteristics of the subjects; and when only a minimal number of references are needed to establish that the articles meet the inclusion criteria. For example, Category:Presidents of the United States is a functional category because identifying a person as a United States President requires only one reference and because the position is clearly one that most people identify with the individuals.

Categories are less useful if the inclusion criteria are unclear or if the characteristics described by the category seem like only minor details to the subject. (Many people have the impression that fraternity/sorority membership is only of minor significance to these people, which is why people are advocating the deletion of those categories.)

Categories do not work at all if the individual articles could be placed in many similar categories, mainly because the category system will become too long to read. This is why actors are no longer categorized as cast members in specific TV shows or movie series. (Also, see Zebra Waxbill.) Also, if membership in the category requires extensive referencing, then the category will not be useful. This is part of the reason why Category:Freemasons was deleted.

Lists are also much better if additional, complex information can be given on the subject. For example, see list of blue plaques. Also, when dealing with some subjects (for example, African-Americans in science), articles on the subject can communicate much more about the issues than either categories or lists of related items.

This is my perspective into lists versus categories. Also, several people have commented that some "category versus lists" guideline pages in Wikipedia may be out of date; you may want to keep this in mind. You should also see Wikipedia:Overcategorization for some examples of other bad categories.

I hope this is useful. Dr. Submillimeter 09:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may find WP:CLS, WP:LIST, WP:CAT, and WP:NCCAT useful as well : ) - jc37 08:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Club

I saw your comment on Bignole's talk page and thought I'd give you the heads-up. The Fight Club DVD has a commentary in which the director describes the film as a black comedy with heavy satire. From the sources I've seen, this was done by the director so it would be satirical and seditious, instead of sinister and seditious. In addition, Edward Norton said this in an interview with the Yale Herald: "[Fight Club] was a dark, comic, sort of surrealist look at some of the dysfunctions of our generation and of young people who are feeling out of sync with the value system they are expected to engage in." It's not solely a black comedy -- other themes, such as self-identity, exist in the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Club

Just because you do not think that it fits does not mean that the filmakers did not intend for it to be that way. I personally found it hilarious, and repeat viewings make it even more so. If you can, I suggest listening to the commentary, and then watching the film again. You'll find even more things to laugh about, because some are very subtle, or not at all explained except in commentary. I've personally been working with User:Erikster on updating that article, and by personally I mean he's doing all the work and I'm just assisting in the DVD information. You can view what he's done so far here. I've already had this discussion with another editor (not being offensive, or trying to sound annoyed, just stating that I'm aware that in the current state of the article that it isn't clear why that category is there). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

California

The proposal to merge is the equivalent of a deletion - the article will no longer be there. Please don't remove my posting again until the discussion is over. --evrik ^(talk) 13:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming Ayn Rand's influences

Thanks for your support but some guy reverted all my work and I didn't really want to argue with him. I only have a little interest in Rand so it's not really my place. Just recently, someone else came in and trimmed the list again, only he went too far and removed people who were famous and do claim to be influenced by Rand in a big way. For example, LaVey admitted that his entire religion was a rehash of Objectivism, so his name belongs. I haven't decided whether I want to try fixing this but I don't want any more conflict. Lancombz 21:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magister officiorum

I just finished translating the German article into English. Take a look? Dr Gangrene 11:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coolcatcanine

Hey there! Just FYI... User:Coolcatcanine had their account blocked indefinitely due to heavy vandalism of the Get Fuzzy page. As a result, the person has now deleted their account. The user's talk page is (still) on my watchlist so I noticed that you gave him/her a welcome message. I just found it ironic that you thanked him/her for their Get Fuzzy "additions"! Haha... Just wanted to let you know, that's all! Have a great day! smileydude66 03:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

Thanks for your comment 'Continued revisions' regarding 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'. You may not think that the race of the attackers is pertinent, however this is how the author himself describes the attack (See 'Afterword' section of Oct 1981 edition of book. Page 377.) I'm hesitant to allow the author's words to be censured. I understand that we live in politically correct times, but if the author described the attackers as 'black' then I don't think that we should censure what the author had written. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.39.176.150 (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

WP:NPA

Hi. In reference to this edit, please follow WP:NPA, and cite references if you feel that someone has made an inappropriate edit. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not worth it to me to go though a lengthy process which would most likely raise tensions again, and make at least one of us feel like WP:NPA is being broken by the other. I know I've cooled down since, and I'll just wait until one (or really, both of us) realize we're working on the same team. Thanks for your concern; BTW, how did you run across this? —Scouter Sig 15:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response; I'm glad you've cooled down since making that post. Page User talk:KP Botany has been on my watchlist since I posted this there (in response to this after seeing the bottom of Vtcondo's post here), and I happened upon your post while reviewing pages on my watchlist. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Bride

There is no Trivia section because someone, in their infinite wisdom, deleted about 20 members' contributions and the entire Trivia section. My piece is sourced, valid, interesting and relevant. I think its a good factoid and adds to the value of the article. Why in the world people keep going around deleting facts from articles for the sake of brevity is beyond me. People want complete articles, with as many verifiable facts as possible, and then they can decide what to read or use. Deleting content on such a flimsy premise is rude and annoying to people who work adding decent content. I'm reverting it back. Unsigned comment (originally on user page) added by Raphaelaarchon on 20:55, 26 April 2007

Magister officiorum

Working on the removal just waiting for a reply from some of the wiki gods! lol Philsgirl 16:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome I guess...

Hehe... well I'm glad someone benefited from it :) And I wish you good luck and a lot of fun in editing the encyclopaedia! Best wishes, Merzul 11:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:CN template

Sorry, I couldn't handle the formatting either, but I think it's best this way. A similar situation had risen up with the Google userbox a while ago, the discussion of which you can see here. Apparently mimicking the font colors of a logo falls under copyright infringement rules, and can't be displayed anywhere else than the mainspace, so I don't think it would be appropriate to try and do it. Right now it seems to be doing just well. (On a side note, I'm starting to have some doubts concerning WikiProject Cartoon Network, don't know why, I just have.) —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) ^{(drop me a line)} 20:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]